Interesting article from [www.eatrightamerica.com]

This is an excerpt - you can read the full article at the link above. What do you all think? The article sums up ..."Clearly, the answer is a resounding “No.” In fact, eating an exclusively raw-food diet is a disadvantage."

An obvious slant/bias from the writer (Joel Fuhrman, M.D.) who does have his own natural healing website, where he promotes a "no-med" approach, etc. He doesn't cite any references in the article. Anyone know of him/put any faith in his methods?


Cooked Foods aren’t Dead Foods


"It is true that when food is baked at high temperatures—and especially when it is fried or barbecued—toxic compounds are formed and important nutrients are lost. Many vitamins are water-soluble, and a significant percent can be lost with cooking, especially overcooking. Similarly, many plant enzymes function as phytochemical nutrients in our body and can be useful to maximize health. They, too, can be destroyed by overcooking.


Enzymes are proteins that work to speed up or “catalyze” chemical reactions. Every living cell makes enzymes for its own activities. Human cells are no exception. Our glands secrete enzymes into the digestive tract to aid in the digestion of food. However, after they are ingested, the enzymes contained in plants do not function as enhancements or replacements for human digestive enzymes.


These molecules exist to serve the plant’s purpose, not ours. The plant enzymes get digested by our own digestive juices along with the rest of the food and are absorbed and utilized as nutrients..."

Hey, juicerkatz!

You note that the data he cites are not clinical; there are no footnotes linking you to summaries of clinical studies with descriptions of methodology, i.e. cooked and raw vegetables were fed to primates over a three month period, etc. In cooking school, we were taught that cooking certain veg and fruits releases their nutrients for more easy assimilation, but this was not really defined. What does assimilation mean? What does it look like in a biological sample? Was deficiency the indicator of successful assimilation? Lack of deficiency?

We do not know for certain that people who eat some cooked foods but mostly raw foods, are at an advantage over those that eat mostly raw foods. We don't know that they have healthier cardiovascular function or greater life expectancy, or whatever marker may be considered. There is no even epidemiological data that people who get their calcium raw have a 37% greater incidence of osteoporosis, say. But it would have to be couched in terms such as that to be convincing. Dr. Fuhrman, and bless his heart for recommending more raw foods, is just guessing. The fact is, until an independent laboratory undertakes a ten year, strictly controlled study of raw foodism to resolve a specific hypothesis regarding general nutritive effects, we are all just gonna have to go on our gut instincts. And if ours aren't highly sensitive, I don't know whose would be : )

Well said, Tamu...

Yeah, without references & hard facts, and the lack of any scientific data, much of it could be construed as conjecture & hearsay...

I haven't read through the website that deeply, maybe there is more scientific info. in other places there...

Unfortunately, trying to preach the Gospel to families & friend by telling them that my "gut" says raw food is the way to go doesn't win many converts, at least not in my experience.

Joel Fuhrman has written a very good book called 'Eat to Live' It has many references at the back to medical studies and reports. Arugula recomended it to me and i am so glad that she did.

He has a lot of very useful things to say and has undoubtedly helped masses of people gain better health.

I don't think his words are 'conjecture and hearsay' as in his work he has clearly put many people on the road to health.

I agree with Tamukha's post but think that Joel Fuhrman shouldn't be dismissed because he recommends cooked soups etc.

if you can take a cooked fruit or vegetable and stick in the ground and grow a live plant from it , then you can tell me its not dead

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

I too think Joel Fuhrman does good work. And most of what he wrote there is true. I do take issue with a couple things:

1) I believe he's correct about enzymes, that they're somewhat of a myth among raw fooders. BUT if it is true that plant enzymes don't aid human digestion, he cannot then claim that 'cooked foods are not "dead" foods', because they most certainly are. Put them in the ground and see if they grow. Enzymes aren't what makes the plant alive, because they're not alive themselves, they're just proteins, he should know that. Science may not yet be able to point a finger at exactly what is that mystical something about raw foods, but it's obvious to those of us who consume them that water-rich living foods are the ideal.

2) The lycopene myth. There are probably tens of thousands of discovered and undiscovered phytonutrients, in addition to lycopene. Even if it IS the case that lycopene content or absorption is better via cooked food, it's hardly fair to point to this ONE phytonutrient and across-the-board say that cooking is therefore good or even acceptable for all of the many thousands of other phytonutrients. They'll need to provide some more examples. There are already countless other nutrients which have been shown to decrease upon cooking. In addition I believe that many lycopene studies are flawed anyway (or just quoted poorly by cooked food apologists), they somehow neglect to consider that cooked foods are more concentrated due to water being removed and therefore will have more nutrients by weight/volume, or they neglect to mention that even if absorption increases slightly, the TOTAL available is less due to some of it having being destroyed in cooking.


Nothing to worry about. It's clear he likes his soups, and he likely knows that most people aren't going to go all raw. No doubt if more Americans ate like he suggested, we'd be a lot healthier as a nation. But of course we here know that cooked is inferior, all we can do is try to spread the word and lead by example.

juicerkatz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting article from
> [www.eatrightamerica.com]
> fault.aspx?article_id=372
>
> This is an excerpt - you can read the full article
> at the link above. What do you all think? The
> article sums up ..."Clearly, the answer is a
> resounding “No.” In fact, eating an exclusively
> raw-food diet is a disadvantage."
>
> An obvious slant/bias from the writer (Joel
> Fuhrman, M.D.) who does have his own natural
> healing website, where he promotes a "no-med"
> approach, etc. He doesn't cite any references in
> the article. Anyone know of him/put any faith in
> his methods?
>
>
> Cooked Foods aren’t Dead Foods
>
>
> "It is true that when food is baked at high
> temperatures—and especially when it is fried or
> barbecued—toxic compounds are formed and important
> nutrients are lost. Many vitamins are
> water-soluble, and a significant percent can be
> lost with cooking, especially overcooking.
> Similarly, many plant enzymes function as
> phytochemical nutrients in our body and can be
> useful to maximize health. They, too, can be
> destroyed by overcooking.
>
>
> Enzymes are proteins that work to speed up or
> “catalyze” chemical reactions. Every living cell
> makes enzymes for its own activities. Human cells
> are no exception. Our glands secrete enzymes into
> the digestive tract to aid in the digestion of
> food. However, after they are ingested, the
> enzymes contained in plants do not function as
> enhancements or replacements for human digestive
> enzymes.
>
>
> These molecules exist to serve the plant’s
> purpose, not ours. The plant enzymes get digested
> by our own digestive juices along with the rest of
> the food and are absorbed and utilized as
> nutrients..."

He a Board Certified MD and has reviewed thousands of studies in addition the results of the patients he's seen. [www.drfuhrman.com] It's true that there are no citations at the EatRightAmerica site. Bet if you asked him mdoffice@drfuhrman.com he'd provide them.

The lycopene thing...

[debbietookrawforlife.blogspot.com]

I put my trust in Dr Fuhrman. I have read most of his books and am a member of his site. He is extremely committed to set the record straight on nutrition and provides good arguments (and scientific studies). on his site members can ask him questions and he answers personally. He strikes me as very ethical, generous and honest. His teachings may not appeal to everyone on this site, as he does not endorse diets such as 811. He endorses a vegan, non-processed, low fat fare, recommends cooked beans and other legumes, is adamant on high greens consumption (raw and cooked) and B12 supplementation, as well as recommends Vitamin D supplementation (he has developed a vegan Vit D).

His concepts of 'toxic hunger' are excellent and he is very knowledgeable about fasting.

His book on fasting/detox as well as Eat to Live are wonderful. He also wrote a two-part book series (I think Eat for Health), which members of this site may find too basic. These two books are geared towards SAD eaters who are looking at a slow transition.

JGunn - this is just a jokey comment but I think there is a tree in Australia which requires a raging inferno of a bush fire for it's seeds to break doemancy and germinate. Just a laugh



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2009 10:11AM by flipperjan.

He obviously has a healing modality for dealing with people where they are, (For those of us on a low sugar protocol) rather than where they "should be". There are some vegetables which are indigestible to humans raw. The cooking can make this food available for assimilation of nutrients. Most crucifers fall into that category and have to be processed, juiced or blended, to have a chance at getting any benefit from them. For some extremists that means we should just not eat them at all rather than lightly cook them. Who knows, just trying my best.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2009 07:35PM by OkunDeji.

debbietook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The lycopene thing...
>
> [debbietookrawforlife.blogspot.com]
> re-some-foods-better-for-us-cooked.html

Yeah the lycopene thing. We're low. Is low better?.

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

I'm not sure I understand your argument. I juice my tomatoes to be sure I get the most out freshly juiced tomatoes and reinsert the pulp into my blender. I don't think low lycopene is a myth. Rather, what is the science, just like protein more isn't better. But I don't subscribe to a nature knows best philosphy. Agree to disagree. Nature selects for species, not individuals. What might help or hurt a species isn't the same thing as the health of the individual. Roy Walford, a noted CR practioner, made this point many years ago. Again, to each their own.

If you are following a 100% raw food diet, there is no need to juice your tomatoes and reinsert the pulp into your blender. Sounds very time-consuming! Whole tomatoes will give you all the lycopene your body needs. As I said in the article (quoting Chris Carlton) a raw fooder will likely be eating more tomatoes than a cooked person anyway, so lycopene will not be a problem.

As for Fuhrman, he likes to include a little cooked food in his diet. Basically, he's a 'cooked-food' scientist. But the high-raw diet he advocates is a BRILLIANT diet. I'd swing from the rooftops if certain people I knew would follow that diet. But it's a pity that, rather on focussing on the benefits of the raw, he is actually trying to put up arguments for cooking food.

None of his arguments for cooking food hold water (as it were...). If you have the time, visit gi2mraw and find the VERY long thread on Fuhrman's pronouncements there. About six months ago. It drew hundreds of replies, which included some excellent debunking of his various claims about cooked food.

Basically, if anyone wants to find reasons for eating cooked food, they won't have to look very hard. As...99% of 'Board Certified MDs', nutritionists and scientists (all of whom eat cooked food, and most of whom eat murdered animals as well) will certainly be able to supply them.

Raw is the path less travelled.

Re Okundeji's comment that'extremists' don't eat foods they can't eat raw, well, guess I am one. It's no hardship - I find there are hundreds of other foods I can choose from to obtain all the nutrients I need.

RawPreston - excellent points!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/03/2009 07:18AM by debbietook.

I think I rather agree with Debbie's post. I know a few very sick people who, if they followed Dr. Fuhrman's diet would probably come off most of their huge array of medicines and loose several stone into the bargain.

Sure it's not 100raw but it is light years ahead of most people s diet.

" There are some vegetables which are indigestible to humans raw. The cooking can make this food available for assimilation of nutrients. Most crucifers fall into that category and have to be processed, juiced or blended, to have a chance at getting any benefit from them."

Ive heard this before about crucifers vegetables.
I eat cauliflower quite often raw and its really good.
I have even mono ate cauliflower for a day and no problems
digesting it.
The only thing I wont eat raw as far as vegetables is brocolli.
I just dont like it.